High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Safeer and Khaleefa v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-11-15
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 872/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No. 346/2011 of Vizhinjam Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Safeer
  • Khaleefa

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Riyas Khan
  • Abdul Kalam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Shajin S. Hameed

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 8025 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC by Safeer and Khaleeфа seeking to quash CC No. 872/2022 arising from Vizhinjam Police Station Crime No. 346/2011. The accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 451, 323 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the victim, causing injuries. The petitioners and the victim have settled their dispute, and the victim has filed an affidavit supporting quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that the matter is settled. The court relies on State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan (2019 (5) SCC 688), which, following Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, lays down the limited circumstances in which the power under Section 482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable offences, especially where the dispute is private and the parties have resolved it. The judgment emphasizes that quashing is inappropriate for heinous or serious offences or offences under special statutes, and outlines considerations such as the nature of injury, the conduct and antecedents of the accused. After careful consideration, the court holds that the dispute is private, the settlement is genuine, and the offender’s conduct favors settlement; accordingly, the petition is allowed and all proceedings in CC 872/2022 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 143, 147, 451, 323 r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised when the dispute is civil/private and settled; not for heinous or public-interest offences; not for offences under special statutes; consideration of antecedents and conduct of the accused; private nature of the dispute supports quashing upon settlement.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution. The victim has filed an affidavit supporting quashing. They urge that the matter involves a private dispute and the settlement should be accepted under the principles laid down in Laxmi Narayan and related cases, which permit quashing of non‑compoundable offences where the civil/private character predominates and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor acknowledges the settlement but expresses reservations about quashing solely on this ground. He emphasizes that quashing is not to be exercised lightly, especially for serious offences or offences under special statutes; nevertheless, given the settled nature of the dispute, the matter warrants careful scrutiny under the controlling precedents.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the controlling principle that quashing of non‑compoundable offences can be exercised in private/civil disputes where there is a settlement, with the caveat that it is not applicable to heinous/offences or offences under special statutes.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited by Laxmi Narayan as part of the jurisprudence governing when quashing is permissible; used to frame the approach toward non‑compoundable offences in settlement scenarios.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited in the context of harmonizing Narinder Singh with Laxmi Narayan to delineate the scope and limits of quashing in cases of private settlements.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Safeer and Khaleefa v State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.346/2011 OF Vizhinjam Police Station,** **Thiruvananthapuram** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 872/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE** **OF FIRST CLASS,NEYYATTINKARA (TEMPORARY)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 SAFEER AGED 37 YEARS S/O. AHAMED KABEER, CHENNA VILAKOM HOUSE, THEMMADIMUKKU, VIZHINJAM DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695521 2 KHALEEFA AGED 34 YEARS S/O. AHAMED KABEER, CHENNA VILAKOM HOUSE, THEMMADIMUKKU, VIZHINJAM DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695521 BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2 RIYAS KHAN AGED 35 YEARS S/O. ABDUL KARIM, SHAFEEK MANZIL, HOUSE NO.282, KOVILVILAKOM VEEDU, VIZHINJAM DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695521 3 ABDUL KALAM CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 2 AGED 42 YEARS S/O. ABDUL KARIM, KOVILVILAKOM VEEDU, HOUSE NO.VII/873, THEMMADIMUKKU, BEACH ROAD, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695521 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI HRITHWIK CS, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.8025 of 2023 -------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of November, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners are the accused in CC No. 872/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No. 346/2011 of Vizhinjam Police Station. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 451, 323 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim and the victim sustained injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 4 the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavit filed by the victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the matter is settled between the parties. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim. 7. In **State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688),** three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation in which non compoundable offences can be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The apex court in CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 5 **Laxmi Narayan** 's case (supra) also relied on the law laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012 (10) SCC 303)** and **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014 (6) SCC 466)** . The apex court in paragraph 13 of the **Laxmi Narayan** 's case discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted hereunder: “13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non - compoundable offences under S.320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 6 Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under S.307 IPC and / or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under S.482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of S.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under S.307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital / delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 7 permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed / charge is framed and / or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein above; v) while exercising the power under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement / compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 8. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the apex court, this court perused the facts in this case and also perused the documents produced by the parties. After going through the entire facts and circumstances I am of the CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 8 considered opinion that the dispute is private in nature and the settlement can be accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 872/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No. 346/2011 of Vizhinjam Police Station are quashed. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS CRL.MC NO. 8025 OF 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8025/2023** |PETITIONER ANNEXURES|| |---|---| |Annexure-A|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN| ||CRIME NO.346/2011 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE| ||STATION.| |Annexure-B|PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||22/10/2022 IN C.C.NO.344/2018 OF THE| ||JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE TEMPORARY| ||COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.| |Annexure-C|AFFIDAVIT SWORN AND EXECUTED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT/CW1.| |Annexure-D|AFFIDAVIT SWORN AND EXECUTED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT/CW2.|